Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Poultry Science logoLink to Poultry Science
. 2020 Apr 27;99(7):3557–3566. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.03.047

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acid in Pekin ducks fed a complex diet

QD Wang ∗, KY Zhang ∗, Y Zhang †, SP Bai ∗, XM Ding ∗, JP Wang ∗, HW Peng ∗, G Tian ∗, Y Xuan ∗, ZW Su ∗, QF Zeng ∗,1
PMCID: PMC7597853  PMID: 32616252

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate to the effects of dietary CP levels and protease supplementation on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, nutrients utilization, and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acid in Pekin ducks fed a complex diet. A total of 960 14-day-old male ducks were weighed and randomly allotted to a 2 × 5 factorial arrangement of 10 treatments with 6 replicate pens per treatment and 16 ducks per pen fed to 49 D of age. Experimental factors included five dietary CP levels ranging from 13.5 to 17.5% and with or without protease (200 mg/kg) supplementation. Between day 28 to 34, the digestible and metabolizable trials were performed. Significant CP × protease interactions (P < 0.05) on breast meat yield, DM, energy and nitrogen utilization, as well as standardized ileal digestibility values of 7 amino acids were observed. Regardless of protease supplementation, ducks fed 13.5, 14.5, and 15.5% CP had a poorer (P < 0.05) growth performance and breast meat yield than ducks fed with 16.5 and 17.5% CP. Ducks fed 13.5% CP had a positive effect (P < 0.05) on meat quality, dietary DM, energy and nitrogen utilization as well as standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids. Protease supplementation increased (P < 0.05) DM and phosphorus retention and decreased (P < 0.05) shear force of breast meat, regardless of CP level; when CP = 14.5%, protease significantly increased (P < 0.05) breast muscle yield. The optimal CP requirement without or with protease supplementation for BWG and FI were 17.02 or 16.53% and 16.64 or 16.75%, respectively, based on linear broken-line regression.

Key words: duck, low-protein diet, meat quality, protease, standard ileal amino acid digestibility

Introduction

Dietary regimens capable of increasing duck production efficiency and reducing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) excretion are of major interest to duck nutritionists. Over the past decades, numerous studies in broilers or pigs have been conducted on the use of synthetic amino acids (AA) in low-protein (LP) diets (Baeza and Leclercq, 1998, Bregendahl et al., 2002, Law et al., 2018). However, conflicting results from these studies prevent clear conclusions on the effects of these diets in practical broiler production. The only consistent result reported in the mentioned studies was the increased accumulation of abdominal fat in broilers fed LP diets (Namroud et al., 2008, Law et al., 2019). There are a few previous studies looking at dietary CP levels on meat ducks. A previous study from our laboratory by Zeng et al. (2015) demonstrated that ducks fed a corn–soybean meal diet from 15 to 35 D of ages with 15% CP had lower growth performance and breast meat yield than those fed diets with 17 or 19% CP, when dietary energy concentration and total AA to N ratio were kept constant.

Recently, the cost of feed ingredients, especially protein ingredients, has continued to increase. In addition, owing to high and unpredictable prices of soybean meal, alternative feedstuffs such as rapeseed meal, cottonseed meal, dried distillers grains with solubles could be valuable alternative proteins for feed formulations (Cowieson et al., 2009). Therefore, the LP diets based on many miscellaneous meals may be a beneficial choice in the duck industry. However, the effect of dietary CP levels is influenced by the digestibility of ingredients in feed, and there are no available data from studies of the LP diet based on diet with many miscellaneous meals in ducks.

Considering the magnitude of antinutritional factors such as protease inhibitors, nonstarch polysaccharides, phytate, and lectins present in the most of poultry feed, there may be an important opportunity to use commercial exogenous enzymes. Ghazi et al. (2002) found that supplemented protease had been applied to LP diets without deleterious effects on the performance of broiler chickens. Supplemental exogenous proteases have been found to improve protein digestibility, energy efficiency, and performance indices in broilers (Fru-Nji et al., 2011), even in a LP diet (Cowieson et al., 2017, Lei et al., 2017, Morales et al., 2017, Law et al., 2018, Mohammadigheisar and Kim, 2018), which indicated that reducing dietary CP levels with exogenous supplementation can be used for production. However, to our knowledge, no data are available concerning the supplementation of protease to reduced CP levels of diets in ducks. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of dietary CP levels and protease supplementation on the growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, nutrients utilization, and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of AA (SIDAA) in Pekin ducks fed complex diets.

Materials and methods

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Sichuan Agricultural University approved all procedures used in the study (SAUPN-19-01).

Bird, Diets, and Management

Experiment (Exp.) 1 was a performance trial. A total of 960 one-day-old male Pekin ducklings were fed a standard starter diet containing 11.70 MJ/kg ME, 19.5% CP, 1.1% lysine (Lys), 0.45% methionine, 0.78% threonine (Thr), and 0.22% tryptophan from 1 to 14 D of age. On day 14, ducks were randomly assigned to 60 cage pens of 16 birds/cage so that ducklings had a similar initial BW in each pen. Ducks were reared in pens (2.2 × 1.2 × 0.9 m) in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room, and had free access to water and feed to 49 D of age.

A 5 × 2 factorial group arrangement was used with 5 dietary CP levels, without or with protease supplementation, totaling 10 treatments with 6 replicates of 16 ducks. Ten isocaloric diets were formulated containing 17.5, 16.5, 15.5, 14.5, and 13.5% CP of each diet in combination with or without protease supplementation (200 mg/kg as per the manufacturer's recommendation). The protease used in this study was produced by fermentation of Bacillus licheniformis (Mianyang Habio Bio-tech Co. Ltd., Mianyang, China). One unit of this protease enzyme activity is defined as the amount of enzyme that releases 1 μg of p-hydroxyphenylalanine from the Flynn-positive AA and peptide per minute at pH 8.5 and 37 °C (Ren et al., 2011). The enzyme activity unit in the present study is 1 × 105 U/g. Diets were fortified with synthetic feed-grade Lys, methionine, Thr, and tryptophan to provide the recommended levels of AA for Pekin ducks in accordance with the NRC (1994) (Table 1). The analyzed N content and AA compositions of the 10 experimental diets are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Composition and nutrient contents of the experimental diets (air-dry basis)%.

Items Dietary crude protein levels %
13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5
Ingredients,%
 Corn 59.8 54.9 50 45.1 40.2
 Cottonseed meal 4 5 6 7 8
 Rapeseed meal 4.50 4.90 5.25 5.60 6.00
 Wheat middlings 8 9 10 11 12
 Rice bran 14.00 13.75 13.50 13.25 13.00
 Feather meal 0.20 0.55 0.90 1.25 1.60
 DDGS 4 6 8 10 12
 Soybean oil 0.30 0.875 1.45 2.025 2.60
 Calcium carbonate 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.29
 Dicalcium phosphate 1.16 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.90
 L-Lysine.HCl 0.82 0.78 0.74 0.70 0.66
 DL-Methionine 0.320 0.305 0.290 0.275 0.260
 Threonine 0.500 0.463 0.425 0.388 0.350
 Tryptophan 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06
 Sodium chloride 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
 Choline chloride (50%) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
 Vitamin premix 1 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
 Mineral premix 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Calculated nutrients levels (%)
 ME (MJ/kg) 11.90 11.90 11.90 11.90 11.90
 Crude protein 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5
 Calcium 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
 Available phosphorus 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
 Lysine 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
 Methionine 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
 Threonine 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
 Tryptophan 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: DDGS, dried distillers grains with solubles.

1

Vitamin premix provides the following per kg of the final diet: vitamin A, 8,000 IU; vitamin D3, 2,000 IU; vitamin E, 5 mg; vitamin K2, 1 mg; vitamin B1, 0.6 mg; vitamin B2, 4.8 mg; vitamin B6, 1.8 mg; vitamin B12, 0.009 mg; niacin, 10.5 mg; DL-calcium, pantothenate, 7.5 mg; folic acid, 0.15 mg.

2

Mineral premix provides the following per kg of the final diet: Fe (FeSO4·H2O), 80 mg; Cu (CuSO4·5H2O), 8 mg; Mn (MnSO4·H2O), 70 mg; Zn (ZnSO4·H2O), 90 mg; I (KI), 0.4 mg; Se (Na2SeO3), 0.3 mg.

Table 2.

Analyzed amino acid and nitrogen concentration of the experimental diets (as-fed basis).

Item Without protease supplementation (-)
 With protease supplementation (+)
13.5% 14.5% 15.5% 16.5% 17.5% 13.5% 14.5% 15.5% 16.5% 17.5%
CP, g/kg 13.24 14.29 15.26 16.48 17.27 13.60 14.50 15.52 16.54 17.27
Nonessential amino acids, g/kg
 Aspartic acid 0.88 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.11 0.93 1.01 1.08 1.15 1.15
 Alanine 0.54 0.61 0.70 0.68 0.69 0.62 0.64 0.72 0.71 0.74
 Cysteine 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.24 0.28
 Glutamic acid 2.22 2.40 2.66 2.74 2.81 2.22 2.40 2.53 2.81 2.69
 Glycine 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.52 0.59 0.60 0.65 0.65
 Proline 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.83 0.89 0.87 0.96 0.89
 Serine 0.50 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.68 0.55 0.58 0.63 0.69 0.65
 Tyrosine 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.34 0.42 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.44
Essential amino acid, g/kg
 Arginine 0.81 0.90 1.04 1.07 1.07 0.87 0.94 0.97 1.17 1.07
 Histidine 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.35 0.43 0.37
 Isoleucine 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.49
 Leucine 1.28 1.40 1.47 1.46 1.34 1.35 1.33 1.37 1.51 1.37
 Lysine 0.94 1.08 1.07 1.03 0.99 1.00 1.14 1.11 1.14 1.07
 Methionine 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.44 0.38 0.40 0.33 0.42
 Phenylalanine 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.63 0.60 0.51 0.56 0.57 0.65 0.60
 Threonine 0.73 0.87 0.83 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.82
 Valine 0.55 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.63 0.66
Total NEAA1 6.16 6.76 7.37 7.53 7.44 6.33 6.75 7.12 7.67 7.49
Total EAA 5.87 6.49 6.77 6.91 6.44 6.27 6.61 6.77 7.29 6.87
EAA: NEAA 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.92
Total AA 12.02 13.25 14.15 14.44 13.88 12.60 13.35 13.88 14.96 14.36
Total AA:N1 5.77 5.89 5.89 5.56 5.11 5.88 5.85 5.68 5.74 5.28
Open in a new tab
1

Abbreviations: EAA, essential amino acid; EAA：NEAA, the content of total EAA of diet/the content of total NEAA of diet; NEAA, nonessential amino acids; Total AA: N, the content of total AA of diet/Nitrogen content of diet.

Data Collection and Measurements in Exp 1

On day 49, after 12 h of feed withdrawal, ducks were weighed, and feed consumption was obtained for each pen. Feed intake (FI), BW gain (BWG) and feed-to-gain (F:G) ratio were determined. Mortality was recorded, and the weights of dead birds were used to adjust the F:G ratio.

On day 49, one bird with weight that was closest to the average of the pen was selected and euthanized by exsanguination. After slaughtering, feathers were plucked, followed by evisceration to obtain dressed breast and leg meats. Carcass yield was determined as the carcass weight in relation to BW expressed as percentage of BW (%), whereas breast and leg meat yields were expressed as percentages of the carcass weight.

The pH of breast meat samples was measured from the same place on the right upper third of all samples using a pH meter (pH-2004; Selecta, Barcelona, Spain) as per previous study of Liao et al. (2018). Each meat sample was measured 3 times, and the average pH value of meat samples was calculated. The color profile (lightness [L∗], redness [a∗], and yellowness [b∗]) of breast meat was measured using a colorimeter (Minolta CR-400; Konica, Chiyoda-ku, Japan) at 3 points on the dorsal surface of each breast sample after 30 min of exposure to ambient air (Van Laack et al., 2000).

To measure shear forces, samples were cut into at least five pieces measuring 1 × 1 × 2 cm (rectangular section 1 × 1 and 2 cm along the fiber axis) and positioned with their muscle fibers perpendicular to the blades of a Warner–Bratzler TA. An AXT plus–Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, Haslemere, UK) was used for shredding (Zeferino, et al., 2016). The device descent speed was set to 10 mm/s. Drip loss was determined from 2 samples per plot, in accordance with the methodology previously described by Silva et al. (2019). Samples were cut into 2.5 cm3 cubes, placed in hermetically sealed containers, and kept in a refrigerator at 4 °C for 24 h. Subsequently, samples were removed from the refrigerator and weighed to calculate percentage drip loss.

Digestibility and Metabolism Trial

Experiment 2 was a subsequent digestibility and metabolism trial of diets fed in Exp.1. On day 28, 2 birds per pen were randomly selected (12 ducks per treatment, 120 ducks in total) and transferred to metabolic cages (2 ducks per cage) and fed with the original diets mixed with titanium dioxide (TiO2; 0.5%). An additional 12 ducks from the 17.5% CP in the group without protease supplementation were randomly selected based on BW, assigned to 6 cages of 2 ducks, and fed with a N-free diet mixed with TiO2 (0.5%) to determine basal endogenous AA losses as per the method of Han et al. (2017). After a 3-day adaptive period (day 28 to 30), the total excreta samples from each cage were collected for 72 h (at day 31 to 33). Excreta were collected and analyzed for DM, TiO2, N, P, and energy to calculate AME in accordance with the method of Cowieson et al. (2009) and Zeng et al. (2015). On day 34, when the 72-hour excreta collection was completed, ducks were fed for 4 h and then were euthanized by cervical dislocation. The ileal digesta was gently rinsed with distilled water into plastic containers (Qin et al., 2017). The collected ileal samples from 2 birds within a cage were pooled and stored at −20 °C for subsequent analyses of DM, TiO2, and AA. These data were used to calculate SIDAA based on our previous studies of Han et al. (2017) and Qin et al. (2017).

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA using the GLM procedure of SAS software (version 9.2; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The model included the main effects of dietary CP concentration, dietary protease supplementation, and their interaction. The pen was the experimental unit. The means showing significant treatment differences at P ≤ 0.05 in ANOVA were then compared using Fisher's protected least significant difference procedure, and an alpha level of 0.05 was considered significant. All data were tested for normality using the UNIVARIATE procedure and common variance using the GLM procedure. In addition, the linear broken-line regression was computed by the NLIN procedure (Robbins et al., 2006), and CP requirement was estimated using linear broken-line regressions when a significant response occurred (P < 0.05) based on growth performance parameters. The R2 was provided to compare these regressions (Pesti et al., 2009).

Results

The analyzed dietary CP and AA concentrations for 10 diets on a formulated basis were determined and summarized in Table 2. The analyzed CP value verified that the diets were well mixed and the 10 experimental diets can be used with confidence for further study.

Growth Performance

The effects of dietary CP levels and protease supplementation on BW, BWG, FI, and F:G ratio are displayed in Table 3. No significant (P > 0.05) CP × protease interactions were detected for growth performance of ducks during 15 to 49 D. CP levels had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on the growth performance of ducks. The BW(day 49), BWG, and FI of ducks fed 17.5% CP = 16.5% CP > 15.5% CP > 14.5% CP > 13.5% CP. The F:G of ducks fed 17.5, 16.5, 15.5, and 14.5% CP was lower (P < 0.05) than that of those fed 13.5% CP. Irrespective of dietary CP level, protease supplementation could numerically increase (P > 0.05) the BWG and FI of ducks aged from 15 to 49 D.

Table 3.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on growth performance of ducks from 15 to 49 D of age (Exp1).

CP% Protease supplementation 49d BW/g 15–49d BWG/g 15–49d FI/g 15–49 D F:G
13.5 - 2,1081 1359 3,939 2.97
14.5 - 2,561 1,816 4,818 2.69
15.5 - 2,961 2,214 5,801 2.65
16.5 - 3,400 2,654 6,814 2.58
17.5 - 3,621 2,877 6,916 2.41
13.5 + 2,042 1,297 3,912 3.05
14.5 + 2,691 1,947 5,177 2.68
15.5 + 2,900 2,151 5,692 2.67
16.5 + 3,623 2,873 6,859 2.50
17.5 + 3,572 2,823 7,084 2.52
SEM 120.8 128.0 218.7 0.11
Main effect
CP% 13.5 2,075d 1,328d 3,926d 3.01a
14.5 2,626c 1,881c 4,997c 2.69b
15.5 2,930b 2,182b 5,747b 2.66b
16.5 3,512a 2,708a 6,837a 2.54b
17.5 3,596a 2,850a 7,000a 2.47b
SEM 85.42 124.8 218.7 0.11
Protease supplementation - 2,930 2,184 5,658 2.66
+ 2,965 2,218 5,754 2.66
SEM 54.02 53.34 97.32 0.05
Source of variation -------------------------Probability-------------------------------
P-value CP <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
protease 0.647 0.650 0.484 0.946
CP∗protease 0.658 0.654 0.844 0.680
Open in a new tab

a–dValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Abbreviations: BWG, BW gain; F:G, feed-to-gain ratio.

1

Values are the means of 6 replicates of 16 ducks each.

Carcass Traits

The CP level × protease interaction for breast meat yield was statistically significant (P < 0.05; Table 4). Protease supplementation had a much greater effect for breast meat yield in the 14.5% CP diet than any of the other CP levels diets. Dietary CP levels had significant effects (P < 0.05) on the yield of carcass and leg meat yields. Ducks fed diets with 16.5 and 17.5% CP had lower (P < 0.05) leg muscle yield than those on diets with 15.5, 14.5, and 13.5% CP. Interestingly, ducks fed diets with 13.5% CP had the highest carcass yield (P < 0.05) than those on diets with other 4 CP levels.

Table 4.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on carcass traits of ducks at 49 D of age (Exp1).

CP% Protease supplementation Carcass traits (%)
Carcass Eviscerated with giblet Eviscerated Breast muscle Leg muscle
13.5 - 90.31 82.8 75.1 6.79d 11.5
14.5 - 88.7 83.3 76.0 6.83d 11.4
15.5 - 88.3 83.4 76.7 12.1b,c 10.4
16.5 - 89.1 85.1 78.2 14.2a,b 9.41
17.5 - 88.2 83.5 76.6 15.3a 9.04
13.5 + 89.8 83.3 75.4 7.31d 10.9
14.5 + 88.4 83.3 76.5 11.6c 10.3
15.5 + 88.6 83.2 75.9 11.5c 10.0
16.5 + 88.1 83.9 76.5 15.5a 8.96
17.5 + 88.0 83.3 76.4 15.6a 8.92
SEM 0.60 0.71 0.79 0.78 0.49
Main effect
CP% 13.5 90.1a 83.0 75.2 7.05d 11.2a
14.5 88.5b 83.3 76.3 9.22c 10.8a
15.5 88.5b 83.3 76.3 11.8b 10.2a
16.5 88.6b 84.5 77.4 14.9a 9.18b
17.5 88.1b 83.4 76.5 15.5a 8.98b
SEM 0.43 0.5 0.56 0.55 0.35
Protease - 88.91 83.63 76.51 11.43 10.34
+ 88.60 83.38 76.13 12.31 9.83
SEM 0.27 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.22
Source of variation -------------------------Probability------------------------------
P-value CP <0.05 0.293 0.129 <0.05 <0.05
Protease 0.411 0.583 0.444 <0.05 0.102
CP∗protease 0.886 0.808 0.622 <0.05 0.923
Open in a new tab

a–dValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

1

Values are the means of 6 ducks per dietary treatment.

Breast Muscle Quality

There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between dietary CP levels and protease supplementation on the quality of breast muscle (Table 5). However, dietary CP levels had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on pH45min value, b∗, shear force, and drop loss. With increasing dietary CP levels, the pH value and b∗ decreased (P < 0.05), and shear force and drop loss increased (P < 0.05). Regardless of dietary protein levels, protease supplementation significantly decreased (P < 0.05) the shear force of breast muscle.

Table 5.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on breast muscle quality of ducks at 49 D of age (Exp1).

CP% Protease supplementation pH value Breast muscle quality
Lightness (L∗) Redness (a∗) Yellowness (b∗) Shear force (kgf/cm2) Drop loss,%
13.5 - 7.041 38.50 10.52 3.77 4.80 3.51
14.5 - 6.87 37.56 10.36 2.19 5.26 3.50
15.5 - 6.82 34.89 9.90 2.37 5.60 3.21
16.5 - 6.73 33.98 8.46 1.58 6.07 3.73
17.5 - 6.70 36.58 10.51 1.82 6.08 5.28
13.5 + 7.25 34.76 9.05 2.88 3.59 2.75
14.5 + 6.87 36.21 8.96 1.46 5.04 4.44
15.5 + 6.80 36.23 10.38 1.99 6.02 3.14
16.5 + 6.67 34.14 9.14 1.65 5.04 4.03
17.5 + 6.62 35.39 9.91 1.92 5.37 5.50
SEM 0.07 1.64 0.67 0.45 0.43 0.69
Main effect
CP% 13.5 7.14a 36.63 9.79 3.33a 4.19b 3.13b
14.5 6.87b 36.89 9.66 1.83b 5.15a 3.97b
15.5 6.81b,c 35.56 10.14 2.18b 5.81a 3.17b
16.5 6.70c 34.06 8.80 1.61b 5.55a 3.88b
17.5 6.66c 35.98 10.21 1.87b 5.73a 5.39a
SEM 0.05 1.16 0.47 0.32 0.30 0.49
Protease - 6.83 36.30 9.95 2.35 5.56 3.85
+ 6.84 35.35 9.49 1.98 5.01 3.97
SEM 0.03 0.73 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.31
Source of variation -------------------------Probability------------------------------
P-value CP <0.01 0.454 0.237 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05
Protease 0.828 0.360 0.280 0.200 <0.05 0.771
CP∗protease 0.319 0.611 0.343 0.732 0.321 0.807
Open in a new tab

a–cValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

1

Values are the means of 6 ducks per dietary treatment.

Energy, N, and P Utilization

The CP level × protease interactions for DM, energy and N utilization, as well as dietary AME content were significant (P < 0.05; Table 6). Protease supplementation with a low-CP diet (13.5%) significantly improved (P < 0.05) energy availability and dietary AME content. Protease supplementation to a 17.5% CP diet significantly improved (P < 0.05) DM and N utilization compared with a diet without protease supplementation. The CP of 13.5, 16.5, and 17.5% diets had a higher (P < 0.05) retention of P than those of the 14.5 and 15.5% CP diets. Protease supplementation could significantly improve (P < 0.05) dietary P utilization regardless of CP levels.

Table 6.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on DM, energy, and nitrogen and phosphorus retention of ducks aged from 28 to 34 D (Exp2).

CP% Protease supplementation DM (%) Energy (%) AME (Kcal/kg) Nitrogen (%) Phosphorus (%)
13.5 - 73.45a,1 78.49b,c 2,9641,c,d 59.68a,b 53.68
14.5 - 70.10b,c 78.03b,c,d 3,040b,c 53.98b 48.19
15.5 - 66.87d 75.35e 2,887e 54.05b 50.26
16.5 - 73.86a 78.80b 3,047b 64.82a 57.75
17.5 - 66.56d 76.01d,e 2,978b,c,d 53.35b 55.44
13.5 + 74.33a 82.03a 3,231a 66.14a 58.32
14.5 + 69.61c 75.95d,e 2,845e 51.66b 54.65
15.5 + 69.38c 76.62c,d,e 2,916d,e 51.41b 53.85
16.5 + 72.08a,b 77.86b,c,d 2,991b,c,d 57.96a,b 64.58
17.5 + 70.69b,c 78.05b,c,d 3,032b,c 64.15a 62.49
SEM 0.78 0.67 25.51 3.20 1.75
Main effect
CP% 13.5 73.89a 80.26a 3,098a 62.91a 56.00b
14.5 69.85b 76.99b,c 2,942c 52.82b 51.42c
15.5 68.13c 75.98a 2,901c 52.73b 52.05c
16.5 72.97a 78.33b 3,019b 61.39a 61.17a
17.5 68.62b,c 77.03b,c 3,005b 58.75a,b 58.96a,b
SEM 0.55 0.47 18.04 2.16 1.24
Protease - 70.17 77.33 2,983 57.18 53.06
+ 71.22 78.10 3,003 58.26 58.78
SEM 0.35 0.30 11.41 1.40 0.78
Source of variation ------------------------Probability-------------------------------
P-value CP <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001
Protease <0.001 0.075 0.224 0.581 <0.001
CP∗protease <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.05 0.824
Open in a new tab

a–eValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

1

Values are the means of 6 replicates of 2 ducks each per treatment.

Standardized Ileal Digestibility of AA

The CP level × protease interactions for SID of 7 AA (histidine [His], phenylalanine [Phe], Thr, cysteine [Cys], glycine [Gly], proline [Pro], and tyrosine [Tyr]) were statistically significant (P < 0.05; Table 7 and Table 8). Irrespective of protease supplementation, compared with 17.5% CP, 13.5% CP significantly increased (P < 0.05) the SID of 11 AA (His, isoleucine, Lys, leucine, Phe, Thr, Pro, Tyr), total essential AA (EAA), total nonessential AA (NEAA), and total AA; moreover, compared to 17.5% CP, the diet with 16.5% CP significantly increased (P < 0.05) the SID of 15 AA (His, isoleucine, Lys, leucine, Phe, Thr, Cys, Gly, Glu, Pro, Tyr, serine), total EAA, total NEAA, and total AA.

Table 7.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on standardized ileal digestibility of essential amino acids of ducks at 34 d of age (Exp2).

CP% Protease supplementation Arg His Ile Lys Leu Met Phe Val Thr Total EAA
13.5 - 82.201 73.21a,b 70.76 77.66 82.92 89.14 75.25a 63.21 72.39a 77.24
14.5 - 77.94 66.53a,b,c 67.43 76.20 81.21 87.26 69.00a,b 55.54 72.42a 74.16
15.5 - 75.73 52.62d 56.52 67.17 76.01 85.77 64.39b,c 51.72 61.60b,c,d 67.61
16.5 - 81.20 58.96c,d 64.63 69.25 78.93 85.13 70.31a,b 55.99 66.92a,b 71.77
17.5 - 75.13 58.82c,d 51.44 62.31 72.00 81.71 64.94b,c 49.00 56.45d 64.84
13.5 + 73.75 63.36c 64.81 71.89 78.15 86.85 65.08b,c 51.66 66.53a,b 70.48
14.5 + 73.21 64.39b,c 62.00 71.32 75.86 86.27 63.06b,c 50.72 65.01a,b,c 68.93
15.5 + 77.41 64.87a,b,c 65.33 72.01 77.47 87.34 67.99a,b,c 58.18 68.86a,b 71.89
16.5 + 80.85 73.54a 69.84 74.57 80.88 80.03 73.37a 58.45 69.88a 74.62
17.5 + 72.72 60.37c,d 57.62 63.43 71.10 82.89 60.44c 50.75 57.73c,d 64.84
SEM 2.577 2.889 3.288 3.019 1.879 2.364 2.623 3.565 2.540 2.516
Main effect
CP% 13.5 77.98 68.29a 67.79a 74.77a 80.53a 88.00 70.16a,b 57.43 69.46a 73.86a
14.5 75.57 65.46a 64.71a 73.76a 78.54a 86.77 66.03b,c 53.13 68.71a 71.55a
15.5 76.57 58.75b 60.92a,b 69.59a 76.74a 86.55 66.19b,c 54.95 65.23a 69.75a,b
16.5 81.03 66.25a 67.23a 71.91a 79.91a 82.58 71.84a 57.22 68.40a 73.19a
17.5 73.92 59.59b 54.53b 62.87b 71.55b 82.30 62.69c 49.87 57.09b 64.84b
SEM 1.822 2.043 2.325 2.134 1.329 1.671 1.855 2.521 1.796 1.779
Protease - 78.44 62.03 62.16 70.52 78.22 85.80 68.78 55.09 65.96 71.12
+ 75.59 65.31 63.92 70.64 76.69 84.68 65.99 53.95 65.60 70.15
SEM 1.152 1.292 1.470 1.350 0.840 1.057 1.173 1.594 1.136 1.125
Source of variation ------------------------Probability-------------------------------
P-value CP 0.085 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 0.058 <0.01 0.201 <0.001 <0.01
Protease 0.086 0.079 0.401 0.947 0.206 0.455 0.099 0.614 0.825 0.544
CP∗protease 0.338 <0.001 0.080 0.214 0.177 0.619 <0.05 0.112 <0.05 0.130
Open in a new tab

a–dValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Abbreviations: Arg, arginine; EAA, essential amino acid; His, histidine; Ile, isoleucine; Leu, leucine; Lys, lysine; Met, methionine; Phe, phenylalanine; Thr, threonine; Val, valine.

1

Values are the means of 6 replicates of 2 ducks each per treatment.

Table 8.

Effects of dietary protein levels and protease supplementation on standardized ileal digestibility of NEAA of ducks at 34 D of age (Exp2).

CP% Protease supplementation Ala Asp Cys Gly Glu Pro Tyr Ser Total NEAA Total AA
13.5 - 69.021 65.56 90.47a,b,c 70.05a,b 79.21 72.13a 74.22a 62.97 73.43 75.27
14.5 - 63.24 63.66 85.21d,e 63.66a,b,c 75.05 64.98b,c 71.07a,b 64.47 69.14 71.59
15.5 - 63.58 55.82 86.44c,d,e 57.62c 71.53 60.64c 63.30b,c 56.16 64.50 65.98
16.5 - 66.60 62.52 89.70a,b,c 65.50a,b,c 75.88 65.08b,c 64.95a,b,c 65.49 69.64 70.65
17.5 - 61.81 53.98 83.12e 61.06c 71.60 60.41c 50.56e 56.06 63.62 64.18
13.5 + 65.87 55.74 88.31b,c,d 60.53c 71.47 59.43c,d 65.45a,b,c 54.41 64.84 67.63
14.5 + 62.12 55.49 89.59a,b,c 61.95b,c 70.93 59.12c,d 56.13c,d,e 54.97 63.96 66.41
15.5 + 69.24 59.60 91.18a,b 65.54a,b,c 74.00 63.21c 61.50b,c,d 61.36 68.12 69.95
16.5 + 70.97 64.19 92.88a 70.79a 78.59 70.10a,b 68.78a,b 65.49 72.66 73.60
17.5 + 63.51 53.60 90.85a,b,c 60.93c 70.47 53.52d 53.06d,e 51.89 62.46 63.59
SEM 2.978 3.190 1.377 2.594 2.097 2.068 3.199 3.029 2.373 2.431
Main effect
CP% 13.5 67.45 60.65 89.39a,b 65.29a,b 75.34a,b 65.78a,b 69.84a 58.69b 69.13a 71.45a
14.5 62.68 59.57 87.40b 62.81a,b 72.99a,b 62.05b 63.60a,b 59.72a,b 66.55a,b 69.00a,b
15.5 66.41 57.71 88.81a,b 61.58b 72.77a,b 61.93b 62.40b 58.76b 66.31a,b 67.96a,b
16.5 68.78 63.36 91.29a 68.15a 77.23a 67.59a 66.86a,b 65.49a 71.15a 72.12a
17.5 62.66 53.79 86.98b 60.99b 71.04b 56.97c 51.81c 53.97b 63.04b 63.88b
SEM 2.106 2.256 0.974 1.834 1.483 1.462 2.262 2.142 1.678 1.719
Protease - 64.85 60.31 86.99 63.58 74.66 64.65 64.82 61.03 68.06 69.53
+ 66.34 57.72 90.56 63.95 73.09 61.08 60.98 57.62 66.41 68.23
SEM 1.332 1.427 0.616 1.160 0.938 0.925 1.431 1.355 1.061 1.087
Source of variation ------------------------Probability-------------------------------
P-value CP 0.150 0.054 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Protease 0.432 0.206 <0.001 0.821 0.244 <0.01 0.064 0.082 0.275 0.402
CP∗protease 0.556 0.142 <0.05 <0.05 0.076 <0.001 <0.05 0.102 0.058 0.088
Open in a new tab

a–dValues within a column with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Abbreviations: AA, amino acid; Ala, alanine; Asp, aspartic acid; Cys, cysteine; Gly, glycine; Glu, glutamic acid; NEAA, nonessential amino acids; Pro, proline; Ser, serine; Tyr, tyrosine.

1

Values are the means of 6 replicates of 2 ducks each per treatment.

Optimal Crude Protein Requirement of Ducks From 15 to 49 D of Age

As shown in Table 9, the optimal CP requirement for ducks with or without protease supplementation was 16.53 or 17.02% based on BW and BWG and was 16.75 or 16.64% based on FI, using linear broken-line regression. However, there was a lower R2 value (0.267 [without protease] or 0.454 [with protease]) when used linear broken-line regression based on the F:G ratio.

Table 9.

Summary of CP requirement for Pekin ducks from 15 to 49 D age (Linear broken-line regression1).

Items CP requirement
Estimated requirement (%) R2 95% CI2 P-value
Without protease supplementation
 BW, (g) 17.02 0.790 16.177 to 17.860 <0.001
 BW gain, BWG (g) 17.02 0.793 16.187 to 17.857 <0.001
 Feed intake, FI (g) 16.64 0.842 16.026 to 17.247 <0.001
 Feed-to-gain ratio, F:G (g: g) 15.04 0.267 13.526 to 16.547 0.015
With protease supplementation
 BW, (g) 16.53 0.818 15.905 to 17.173 <0.0001
 BWG, (g) 16.53 0.822 15.902 to 17.164 <0.001
 FI, (g) 16.75 0.844 16.126 to 17.381 <0.001
 F:G, (g: g) 14.90 0.454 14.077 to 15.726 <0.001
Open in a new tab
1

Linear broken-line is Y = L + V × (R-X), where L is the ordinate, V is the random component of the slope, R is the abscissa of the breakpoint, and the value R-X is zero at values of X > R.Y = response index, X = dietary CP levels (%), R = breakpoint (the optimal level), L = the response at X, R. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the estimated CP requirement.

Discussion

Attempts to decrease the CP content of broiler diets have been performed. Most researchers agree that reduction of dietary CP has some noxious effects on performance and appetite (Namroud et al., 2008). These reports were further validated by the data in the present study that LP diets (13.5, 14.5, and 15.5%) could depress the BW, BWG, and FI of ducks aged between15 to 49 D. These findings are in agreement with those of previous studies showing that feeding ducks with 15% CP diets had a lower BW and BWG than feeding with 17% and 19% CP diets, irrespective of dietary ME concentration (Zeng et al., 2015). Namroud et al. (2008) reported that decreasing dietary CP below a minimum level (<19%) was sufficient to maintain EAA levels, retard growth and feed intake, and increase the F:G ratio. Reduced growth performance in broilers fed LP diets and supplemented with EAA has been reported irrespective of their environmental condition. This reduction could be associated with lower levels of specific NEAA such as Gly and serine or Glu or with a nonspecific need for N (Namroud et al., 2008).

In the present study, we found the NEAA concentration in 13.5 and 14.5% CP diets was lower. In most of the previous similar studies, a limiting minimum level for CP reduction lower than this level could rapidly influence performance with or without EAA or NEAA supplementation (Baeza and Leclercq, 1998, Bregendahl et al., 2002, Yamazaki et al., 2006, Namroud et al., 2008).

In the present study, a lower digestibility of feed ingredients was used in the experimental diets. Widyaratne and Drew (2011) reported that LP diets could support growth performance of broiler chickens at similar levels to high-protein diets when highly digestible feed ingredients were used. Consistently, we found the N utilization of diets ranged from 51.51 to 66.16%. These values were lower than the ranges of 73.48 to 81.7% reported by Zeng et al. (2015) when ducks were fed a typical corn-soybean meal diet. In addition, we found that 16.5% and 17.5% CP had a higher energy, and N and P utilization than 14.5% and 15.5% CP, which may explain why ducks fed diets containing 16.5 and 17.5% CP had a better growth performance. Furthermore, by the linear broken-line regression model, the optimal dietary CP levels ranged from 16.64 to 17.02% based on FI and BWG regardless of protease supplementation.

In contrast, we observed that 13.5 and 17.5% CP had the highest and lowest SIDAA, respectively. Similar effects have been recently observed in pigs (Wang et al., 2017). This observation raises the interesting possibility that LP diets may have elevated amino acid digestibility and/or reduced endogenous amino acid flow to compensate intestinal AA deficiency. The other reason is thought to be related to the higher-protein diet (17.5%) contains increased levels of lower digestible ingredients, namely, cottonseed meal, rapeseed meal, wheat middlings, feather meal, and dried distillers grains with solubles and it contains 20% less higher digestible corn, which indicates that lower digestible ingredients in diets with 17.5% CP maybe lead to a lower SIDAA.

In the present study, although a numerical improvement in growth performance by protease supplementation was observed, it was also found that protease supplementation could significantly improve dietary energy, N and P utilization, and SID of His, Phe, Thr, Cys, Gly, Pro, and Tyr. These results agreed with those of the study of Freitase et al. (2011), which reported no effect of supplemental protease on growth performance, with a significant increase in apparent AA, N, or energy digestibility in broilers. Yuan et al. (2015) showed that supplementation of protease enzyme had no impact on the F:G ratio in broilers. Furthermore, Angel et al. (2011) also observed that the performance index of broilers was not significantly affected by enzyme supplementation in comparison with that of control broilers. Similarly, many reports have verified that exogenous protease supplementation could increase dietary SIDAA (Cowieson and Roos, 2014), N, energy, starch, and fat digestibility (Fru-Nji et al., 2011, Kalmendal and Tauson, 2012, Amerah et al., 2017). Freitas et al. (2011) reported that exogenous protease could improve the digestibility of protein to a greater extent in high-protein/high-energy diets than in diets with LP/low-energy. A recent meta-analysis of the effects of a monocomponent protease on apparent ileal AA digestibility in pigs and poultry revealed that the mean response was approximately +4% over a range of control diets and single feed ingredients (Cowieson and Roos, 2014). These results suggested that protease supplementation changes the dietary energy, CP and AA concentration, and further alters the pattern of AA balance by increasing nutrient utilization. These factors consequently result in the inconsistent growth performance observed in different studies of pigs or poultry (Cowieson and Roos, 2014). Walk et al. (2018) evaluated 8 neutral and 6 acid proteases and found that protease supplementation improved the apparent ileal digestibility of AA, but this was not reflected in improvements in growth performance of poultry or chicks.

As expected, breast meat yield decreased in ducks fed LP diets in the present study. Previous studies have reported the same phenomenon in ducks. Farhat and Chavez (1999) observed changes in breast muscle thickness using ultrasound showing values of 8.42, 7.26, and 6.93 mm for high (23%), medium (19%), and low protein (17%) programs, respectively. Mohammadigheisar et al. (2018) found that feeding broiler chickens with LP diets had no effect on breast meat yield. Nevertheless, ducks fed 13.5% CP had better carcass and leg meat yields. This may be due to that birds being fed low CP increased the deposition of abdominal fat (Rosebrough and McMurtry, 1993) because low-CP diet had a higher calorie: protein ratio. It appears that the excess available energy beyond that required for protein deposition is diverted to abdominal fat deposition (Zeng et al., 2014). Moreover, this effect was, at least partially, due to depressed growth performance by low-CP diets. We also found that protease supplementation significantly increased the yield of breast meat. Mahmood et al. (2018) reported an increase in the carcass and breast meat yield of broilers associated with protease supplementation could be attributed to enhanced utilization and deposition of protein (Xu et al., 2017).

Meat quality is a very important features for producers and consumers. The pH of a meat has a direct bearing on the quality attributes such as tenderness, water holding capacity, color, juiciness, and shelf life. Broiler breast meat with high pH has a higher water binding capacity than meat with a lower pH (Mir et al., 2017). Calvo et al. (2017) also observed a positive correlation between higher pH values and the lower drop loss for pork. Low water holding capacity results in increased cooking and drip losses, low shelf life, and decreased tenderness or increased shear force and was found to be associated with low pH (Barbut, 1993). Identification of color is an easy way to determine the pH of meat: very dark meat will have a high pH, whereas light meat will have a low pH (Fernandez et al., 2002). Similarly, we also found that breast meat from 13.5% CP group had a higher pH with a lower drop loss and shear force and a higher level of b∗ in this study. These results indicated that ducks fed 13.5% CP had a positive effect on meat quality. The reason may be owing to the low-CP (13.5%) diet decreasing N deposition and increasing fat retention in breast meat. Bregendahl et al. (2002) reported that chicks fed low-CP diets retained less N and more ether extract compared with chicks fed control diets. Essén-Gustavsson et al. (1994) found that intramuscular fat was higher in both M. longissimus and M. biceps fermorsi from pigs on the LP diet (13.5%) than the same muscles from pigs on a high-protein diet (18.5%). They also showed the shear force in pigs fed a high-protein diet was higher than those fed a LP diet (4.7 and 4.0 kg/cm2, respectively). This may explain why protease supplementation significantly increased the shear force of breast meat in our study.

Conclusions

In summary, LP (13.5, 14.5, and 15.5%) diets containing many complex meals could depress FI, BW, and BWG, as well as decrease the breast meat yield of ducks during 15 to 49 D of age. Although having the poorest growth performance, 13.5% CP had a positive effect on meat quality, nutrient utilization, and SIDAA. Protease supplementation increased P retention regardless of CP level; when CP = 14.5%, protease could significantly increase breast muscle yield. Ducks fed diets containing many complex meals should keep the dietary CP levels ≥16.53% based on BWG and FI regardless of protease supplementation.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from National Key R & D Program of China (2017YFD0502004); Modern Agri-industry Technology Research System of China (CARS-42-10); “111” project of Foreign Experts Affairs of China; Sichuan Agricultural University 211 Foundation.

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors did not provide a conflict of interest statement.

References

  1. Amerah A.M., Romero L.F., Awati A., Ravindran V. Effect of exogenous xylanase, amylase, and protease as single or combined activities on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of broilers fed corn/soy diets. Poult. Sci. 2017;96:807–816. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Angel C.R., Saylor W., Vieira S.L., Ward N. Effects of a monocomponent protease on performance and protein utilization in 7- to 22-day-old broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2011;90:2281–2286. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-01482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baeza E., Leclercq B. Use of industrial amino acids to allow low protein concentrations in finishing diets for growing Muscovy ducks. Br. Poult. Sci. 1998;39:90–96. doi: 10.1080/00071669889448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbut S. Colour measurements for evaluating the pale soft exudative(PSE) occurrence in Turkey meat. Food Res. 1993;26:39–43. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bregendahl K., Sell J.L., Zimmerman D.R. Effect of low-protein diets on growth performance and body composition of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2002;81:1156–1167. doi: 10.1093/ps/81.8.1156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calvo L., Segura J., Toldra F., Flores M., Rodriguez A.I., Lopez-Bote C.J., Rey A.I. Meat quality, free fatty acid concentration, and oxidative stability of pork from animals fed diets containing different sources of selenium. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2017;23:716–728. doi: 10.1177/1082013217718964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cowieson A.J., Bedford M.R. The effect of phytase and carbohydrase on ileal amino acid digestibility in monogastric diets: complimentary mode of action. World Poult. Sci. J. 2009;65:609–624. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cowieson A.J., Roos F.F. Bioefficacy of a mono-component protease in the diets of pigs and poultry: a meta-analysis of effect on ileal amino acid digestibility. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2014;2:13–21. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cowieson A.J., Zaefarian F., Knap I., Ravindran V. Interactive effects of dietary protein concentration, a mono-component exogenous protease and ascorbic acid on broiler performance, nutritional status and gut health. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017;57:1058–1068. [Google Scholar]
  10. Essen-Gustavsson B., Karlsson A., Lundstrom K., Enfalt A.C. Intramuscular fat and muscle fibre lipid contents in halothane-gene-free pigs fed high or low protein diets and its relation to meat quality. Meat Sci. 1994;38:269–277. doi: 10.1016/0309-1740(94)90116-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Farhat A., Chavez E.R. Effects of line, dietary protein, sex, age, and feed withdrawal on insulin-like growth factor-I in White Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 1999;78:1307–1312. doi: 10.1093/ps/78.9.1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernandez X., Sante V., Baeza E., Lebihan-Duval E., Berri C., Remignon H., Babile R., Le Pottier G., Astruc T. Effects of the rate of muscle post mortem pH fall on the technological quality of Turkey meat. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002;43:245–252. doi: 10.1080/00071660120121463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Freitas D.M., Vieira S.L., Angel C.R., Favero A., Maiorka A. Performance and nutrient utilization of broilers fed diets supplemented with a novel mono-component protease. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2011;20:322–334. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fru-Nji F., Kluenter A.M., Fischer M., Pontoppidan K. A feed serine protease improves broiler performance and increases protein and energy digestibility. J. Poult. Sci. 2011;48:239–246. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghazi S., Rooke J.A., Galbraith H., Bedford M.R. The potential for the improvement of the nutritive value of soya-bean meal by different proteases in broiler chicks and broiler cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002;43:70–77. doi: 10.1080/00071660120109935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Han H.Y., Zhang K.Y., Ding X.M., Bai S.P., Luo Y.H., Wang J.P., Zeng Q.F. Effect of dietary fiber levels on performance, gizzard development, intestinal morphology, and nutrient utilization in meat ducks from 1 to 21 days of age. Poult. Sci. 2017;96:4333–4341. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ren J., Tong Y.K., Huang L., Wang B., Chen L.H., Lv H.H. The enzymes assay of the fermentation of CHE feed on line. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2011;23:25–28. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalmendal R., Tauson R. Effects of a xylanase and protease, individually or in combination, and an ionophore coccidiostat on performance, nutrient utilization, and intestinal morphology in broiler chickens fed a wheat-soybean meal-based diet. Poult. Sci. 2012;91:1387–1393. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-02064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Law F.L., Idrus Z., Farjam A.S., Boo L.J., Awad E.A. Effects of protease supplementation of low protein and/or energy diets on growth performance and blood parameters in broiler chickens under heat stress condition. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019;18:679–689. [Google Scholar]
  20. Law F.L., Zulkifli I., Soleimani A.F., Liang J.B., Awad E.A. The effects of low-protein diets and protease supplementation on broiler chickens in a hot and humid tropical environment. Asian-australas J. Anim. Sci. 2018;31:1291–1300. doi: 10.5713/ajas.17.0581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lei X.J., Cheong J.Y., Park J.H., Kim I.H. Supplementation of protease, alone and in combination with fructooligosaccharide to low protein diet for finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. J. 2017;88:1987–1993. doi: 10.1111/asj.12849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liao H., Wu X.P., Zhang K.Y., Ding X.M., Bai S.P., Wang J.P., Zeng Q.F. The effect of citric acid acidification of drinking water on growth performance, cecal pH, and cecal microflora of meat duck. Livest. Sci. 2018;209:54–59. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mahmood T., Mirza M.A., Nawaz H., Shahid M. Exogenous protease supplementation of poultry by-product meal-based diets for broilers: effects on growth, carcass characteristics and nutrient digestibility. J. Anim. Physiol. N. 2018;102:E233–E241. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mir N.A., Rafiq A., Kumar F., Singh V., Shukla V. Determinants of broiler chicken meat quality and factors affecting them: a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017;54:2997–3009. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2789-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mohammadigheisar M., Kim I.H. Addition of a protease to low crude protein density diets of broiler chickens. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018;46:1377–1381. [Google Scholar]
  26. Morales A., Buenabad L., Castillo G., Vazquez L., Espinoza S., Htoo J.K., Cervantes M. Dietary levels of protein and free amino acids affect pancreatic proteases activities, amino acids transporters expression and serum amino acid concentrations in starter pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. N. 2017;101:723–732. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Namroud N.F., Shivazad M., Zaghari M. Effects of fortifying low crude protein diet with crystalline amino acids on performance, blood ammonia level, and excreta characteristics of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2008;87:2250–2258. doi: 10.3382/ps.2007-00499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pesti G.M., Vedenov D., Cason J.A., Billard L. A comparison of methods to estimate nutritional requirements from experimental data. Br. Poult. Sci. 2009;50:16–32. doi: 10.1080/00071660802530639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Qin S., Tian G., Zhang K., Ding X., Bai S., Wang J., Jia G., Zeng Q. Influence of dietary rapeseed meal levels on growth performance, organ health and standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in meat ducks from 15 to 35 days of age. J. Anim. Physiol. N. 2017;101:1297–1306. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Robbins K.J., Saxton A.M., Southern L.L. Estimation of nutrient requirements using broken-line regression analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2006;84:E155–E165. doi: 10.2527/2006.8413_supple155x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rosebrough R.W., McMurtry J.P. Protein and energy relationships in the broiler chicken. Effects of protein quantity and quality on metabolism. Br. J. Nutr. 1993;70:667–678. doi: 10.1079/bjn19930162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Silva V.A., Clemente A.H.S., Nogueira B.R.F., de Carvalho A.C., de Freitas L.F.V.B., Ramos A.D.S., Bertechini A.G. Supplementation of selenomethionine at different ages and levels on meat quality, tissue deposition, and selenium retention in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2019;98:2150–2159. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Laack R.L.J.M., Liu C.H., Smith M.O., Loveday H.D. Characteristics of pale, soft, exudative broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 2000;79:1057–1061. doi: 10.1093/ps/79.7.1057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Walk C.L., Pirgozliev V., Juntunen K., Paloheimo M., Ledoux D.R. Evaluation of novel protease enzymes on growth performance and apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in poultry: enzyme screening. Poult. Sci. 2018;97:2123–2138. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang D., Wan X., Peng J., Xiong Q., Niu H., Li H., Chai J., Jiang S. The effects of reduced dietary protein level on amino acid transporters and mTOR signaling pathway in pigs. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017;485:319–327. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.02.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Widyaratne G.P., Drew M.D. Effects of protein level and digestibility on the growth and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2011;90:595–603. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-01098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu X., Wang H.L., Pan L., Ma X.K., Tian Q.Y., Xu Y.T., Long S.F., Zhang Z.H., Piao X.S. Effects of coated proteases on the performance, nutrient retention, gut morphology and carcass traits of broilers fed corn or sorghum based diets supplemented with soybean meal. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2017;223:119–127. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yamazaki M., Murakami H., Nakashima K., Abe H., Takemasa M. Effects of excess essential amino acids in low protein diet on abdominal fat deposition and nitrogen excretion of the broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2006;43:150–155. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yuan L., Wang S.Q., Wang Z.X., Zhu H., Huang K. Effects of exogenous protease supplementation on endogenous trypsin activity and gene expression in broilers. Genet. Mol. Res. 2015;14:13633–13641. doi: 10.4238/2015.October.28.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeferino C.P., Komiyama C.M., Pelícia V.C., Fascina V.B., Aoyagi M.M., Coutinho L.L., Sartori J.R., Moura A.S.A.M.T. Carcass and meat quality traits of chickens fed diets concurrently supplemented with vitamins C and E under constant heat stress. Animal. 2015;10:163–171. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115001998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Zeng Q.F., Cherry P., Doster A., Murdoch R., Adeola O., Applegate T.J. Effect of dietary energy and protein content on growth and carcass traits of Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 2015;94:384–394. doi: 10.3382/ps/peu069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Poultry Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES